S.F. budget approved quickly

Diana Walsh, OF THE EXAMINER STAFF

Published 4:00 am, Tuesday, July 18, 1995

1995-07-18 04:00:00 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- With a surprising lack of rancor, San Francisco's Board of Supervisors has overwhelmingly passed a new budget that, for the first time in years, includes no layoffs, no new taxes and no cuts in services.

In recent years, the 11-member board has spent hours arguing over the fine print of the voluminous budget documents. But at their first full airing of the 1995-96 fiscal plan Monday, the supervisors talked for less than 15 minutes and came as close to unanimity on a budget as any board has in nearly 25 years, voting 10-1 in favor of the $2.9 billion spending document.

"I can never remember a budget going as smoothly as it did this year," said Budget Analyst Harvey Rose, who has been crunching the numbers for the board since 1971. "I can't even remember a vote that was 10-1 on the budget. Normally, two or three or more on the board take exception with a couple of issues."

The equanimity that surrounded this year's budget began when Mayor Jordan introduced his spending plan at the end of May. Although budget officials had predicted a $102 million deficit, Jordan's fiscal experts said an improving economy, a handful of job cuts and a few administrative savings had resulted in an unexpectedly rosy fiscal outlook.

Just one little deficit&lt;

When the Budget Committee held public hearings in late June, few critics came out to protest the plan. And the only deficit the three-member committee had to tackle was created mid-June after the mayor withdrew his support for a property tax that was expected to raise $15 million, including $6 million for parks.

Acting on Rose's recommendations, the committee came up with more than $14.8 million in cuts, including eliminating vacant positions in some departments, phasing in capital improvement projects and delaying costs related to workers' retirement benefits.

Monday, members of the board went along with the committee's recommendations and added only two amendments of their own.

Trying to head off a program that would deduct rent from welfare recipients' monthly checks, the board approved an amendment proposed by Supervisor Terence Hallinan that sets aside almost all the money needed to run the effort in a reserve account.

The program, which was sponsored by Jordan and approved by voters last November, allows the Department of Social Services to deduct $280 from the $345 that General Assistance recipients get each month to pay for housing.

Brian Cahill, director of Social Services, questioned whether the board had the legal authority to make such a move.

"We'll certainly be speaking to the city attorney's office about this immediately," Cahill said. "I think it's questionable, but I defer to the lawyers on this."

Jordan, who has opposed the study in the past, has not decided whether he will veto the measure, said spokeswoman Staci Walters.

Kennedy, who has long been a vocal opponent of putting The City into the utilities business, took her opposition a step further by withdrawing her support for the entire budget package. Hers was the sole dissenting vote on the fiscal plan.

Hsieh, who heads the Budget Committee, was delighted by the relatively painless budget process, but warned that there might yet be bad news. The City is still awaiting word on how much the state and federal governments will cut local funding.

"It's not over until we see what the federal and state budgets will be," Hsieh said. "That's why I've told the board we should revisit all of this in the first week of October." &lt;